Evo6point5 wrote:How is a ride at an average speed of 35km/h no more dangerous than a walk at 7km/h?

Cause you are using an racing cyclists average speed as a benchmark for mandating helmets for everyone.If you can do these average speeds , well done mate, good for you.But thats an exception, thats not average, thats not common thats not standard.

Lots of people ride at an average speed of 10-15km/h.Compare it all you like, but there is no real need for a helmet at these speeds.Yet the MHL ignores this, and decides otherwise.

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

damhooligan wrote:Lots of people ride at an average speed of 10-15km/h.Compare it all you like, but there is no real need for a helmet at these speeds.Yet the MHL ignores this, and decides otherwise.

I must just be a total klutz on the bike or just damn unlucky because of the few crashes I've had the worst have been at these speeds or under.

If you crash at 10km/h and smack your head on the gutter you are most certainly going to sustain a major injury if not wearing a helmet. Sure you will probably be a lot worse off at 35km/h if the same thing happens, just saying you aren't immune from serious injury at low speed. It depends on how you fall and what you hit when you fall. Often in a crash situation you often have no time to react, one moment you are fine, the next moment you are on the ground bleeding and dazed (or worse).

Evo6point5 wrote:How is a ride at an average speed of 35km/h no more dangerous than a walk at 7km/h?

Cause you are using an racing cyclists average speed as a benchmark for mandating helmets for everyone.If you can do these average speeds , well done mate, good for you.But thats an exception, thats not average, thats not common thats not standard.

Lots of people ride at an average speed of 10-15km/h.Compare it all you like, but there is no real need for a helmet at these speeds.Yet the MHL ignores this, and decides otherwise.

No, the premise for MHLs is that public safety is better served with than without. It's a Road Rule, remember, and it's trivial to come up with scenarios where breaching this rule or that isn't dangerous at all, isn't dangerous enough to worry about or whatever. It's also beside the point. The point is that making, and enforcing, certain rules makes things safer.

Want to argue that MHLs don't do this? Fine. But arguing that non-compliance is harmless in some cases is no argument at all.

high_tea wrote:No, the premise for MHLs is that public safety is better served with than without. It's a Road Rule, remember, and it's trivial to come up with scenarios where breaching this rule or that isn't dangerous at all, isn't dangerous enough to worry about or whatever. It's also beside the point. The point is that making, and enforcing, certain rules makes things safer.

Want to argue that MHLs don't do this? Fine. But arguing that non-compliance is harmless in some cases is no argument at all.

Yes, it is a public safety law, but, like all public safety laws there is a balance. Are you seriously arguing that mandating motorcycle helmets for pedestrians crossing a road would not make it safer for them to cross the road? Of course it would, but it would still be a stupid law because crossing the road is not so dangerous that we mandate helmets. Yet, while over 2,000 pedestrians died on Australian roads over the last 10 years compared to 356 cyclists, it is mandated for cycling.

The problem is one of balance. Mandating safety equipment for cycling is getting the balance wrong. There are dangers in relation to cycling but not so much danger that we need to mandate the wearing of helmets. It should be up to the rider.

damhooligan wrote:Lots of people ride at an average speed of 10-15km/h.Compare it all you like, but there is no real need for a helmet at these speeds.Yet the MHL ignores this, and decides otherwise.

I must just be a total klutz on the bike or just damn unlucky because of the few crashes I've had the worst have been at these speeds or under.

If you crash at 10km/h and smack your head on the gutter you are most certainly going to sustain a major injury if not wearing a helmet. Sure you will probably be a lot worse off at 35km/h if the same thing happens, just saying you aren't immune from serious injury at low speed. It depends on how you fall and what you hit when you fall. Often in a crash situation you often have no time to react, one moment you are fine, the next moment you are on the ground bleeding and dazed (or worse).

You probably are unlucky...

Lots of people that fall at low speeds dont hit their head.just cause you fall , it doesnt mean injury is bound to happen.

I understand I am not immune, but I consider the risk to be small.Not saying its not there, just saying its too small for me to say, I must wear a helmet.

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

Evo6point5 wrote:How is a ride at an average speed of 35km/h no more dangerous than a walk at 7km/h?

Cause you are using an racing cyclists average speed as a benchmark for mandating helmets for everyone.If you can do these average speeds , well done mate, good for you.But thats an exception, thats not average, thats not common thats not standard.

Lots of people ride at an average speed of 10-15km/h.Compare it all you like, but there is no real need for a helmet at these speeds.Yet the MHL ignores this, and decides otherwise.

No, the premise for MHLs is that public safety is better served with than without. It's a Road Rule, remember, and it's trivial to come up with scenarios where breaching this rule or that isn't dangerous at all, isn't dangerous enough to worry about or whatever. It's also beside the point. The point is that making, and enforcing, certain rules makes things safer.

Want to argue that MHLs don't do this? Fine. But arguing that non-compliance is harmless in some cases is no argument at all.

No.., its not better for the public health at all.It prevents people from riding.And the benfits outweigh the risk 20:1, so its better to ride.Its in the best interest for the public to promote cycling, not to reduce it by MHL's....

Trivial?far from it, unlike the elitist racing average speeds of 35 that was mentioned before15 km/h is something anyone can do , and wil do.think commuters, think families, think shop runs, think melb blue bikes...The amount of riders doing this speed is far greater then to call it trivial.it would even say they make up at least 50% of all bike trips.

And I wasn't arguing non-compliance of the law, as the law must be obeyed.But I am whinging that the law is wrong...

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

Xplora wrote:evopoint, are you going to provide the 50K required to fund such a study?

There is no study of these things outside Australia because they just don't see the point. It would be like studying the effectiveness of raising children by lions in the wild... the MHL is a waste of time for most of the world, they won't study it. The writing is already on the wall... cycling is an effective replacement for walking. It is no more dangerous than walking... the hysteria about helmets won't go away because it just doesn't make sense to any sensible person.

To the less sensible, well it's fine because they don't have the ability to see the loss of freedom as a bad thing.

How is a ride at an average speed of 35km/h no more dangerous than a walk at 7km/h? That's like saying driving at 300km/h is the same as 40km/h.

I've had many crashes throughout my mtb/road/tri days and each has hurt / injured me more than anything that's happened to me whilst walking.

Why would I have to put up money for the study? I think mhl's are good. How many motorcyclists ride without helmets?

I had to laugh at the choice of average speed... I absolutely HAMMER my commute some days and I'll average 30kmh at best, going by my Cateye which removes stops from the average. I topped 63kmh whilst pedalling my backside off down a hill last week... I smash it out. I can't get to your average on my commute and I only have to stop 3-5 times for lights if I'm having a decent run. The only people going as fast as me are on spirited rides (you can see they are hammering it too)... the MHL just isn't needed for the rest, and the rest are idiots if they really believe they'll brutalise their head if they have a smash riding so placidly.

I'm already close to the maximum average speed that is safe on my commute.

The reason you'd put up money for the study is to promote MHLs in Europe, the UK, the rest of the free world. My comment was that there are few studies on MHL because only Australia and a handful of other juridictions have been dumb enough to put this law into place. You were the one bringing the challenge - no one in Europe is that interested in ruining their cycling culture like Australia. Your comments about motorcycling are telling - there are truckloads of people who feel the same way about helmets on motos as I do about cycling helmets. You have to look beyond your backyard for the opinions and answers you want.

Ok, this is something i see all the time and i just don't get it. My fiancee isn't interested in riding for various reasons, but she has never for a moment mentioned any kind of issue with wearing a helmet. They are available from Big W for $18 so cost and availability can hardly be an impediment.

As far as i'm concerned if you removed the MHL it wouldn't suddenly lead to lots of people commuting by bike who didn't before, it would just mean they would use a different excuse.

When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.

Ok, this is something i see all the time and i just don't get it. My fiancee isn't interested in riding for various reasons, but she has never for a moment mentioned any kind of issue with wearing a helmet. They are available from Big W for $18 so cost and availability can hardly be an impediment.

As far as i'm concerned if you removed the MHL it wouldn't suddenly lead to lots of people commuting by bike who didn't before, it would just mean they would use a different excuse.

Its been said before.Just cause you dont see it, doesnt mean it doesnt exsist..

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

ldrcycles wrote:Ok, this is something i see all the time and i just don't get it. My fiancee isn't interested in riding for various reasons, but she has never for a moment mentioned any kind of issue with wearing a helmet. They are available from Big W for $18 so cost and availability can hardly be an impediment.

Here we go again. The topic has been covered numerous times in this thread. Be aware - there was a significant drop-off in cycle use in 1990, about 30% for adults and in excess of 50% for teenagers. You may not see the helmet as a negative - you're an enthusiast, committed to your recreation/transport pursuit. It's all the average folk who don't ride that are put off by the need for a helmet (yes, amongst other things). Just take a look at some videos of European cities and see just who is riding.... and how.

high_tea wrote:No, the premise for MHLs is that public safety is better served with than without. It's a Road Rule, remember, and it's trivial to come up with scenarios where breaching this rule or that isn't dangerous at all, isn't dangerous enough to worry about or whatever. It's also beside the point. The point is that making, and enforcing, certain rules makes things safer.

Want to argue that MHLs don't do this? Fine. But arguing that non-compliance is harmless in some cases is no argument at all.

Yes, it is a public safety law, but, like all public safety laws there is a balance.

True. I should have said that the balance of convenience and public safety (something like that, it's the stated purpose of the statute) is better served with than without.

Are you seriously arguing that mandating motorcycle helmets for pedestrians crossing a road would not make it safer for them to cross the road? Of course it would, but it would still be a stupid law because crossing the road is not so dangerous that we mandate helmets. Yet, while over 2,000 pedestrians died on Australian roads over the last 10 years compared to 356 cyclists, it is mandated for cycling.

The problem is one of balance. Mandating safety equipment for cycling is getting the balance wrong. There are dangers in relation to cycling but not so much danger that we need to mandate the wearing of helmets. It should be up to the rider.

DS

Well, fair enough. But the issue is the dangers, or otherwise, of cycling in general. That MHLs, or any other law, are useless in this situation or that is beside the point. The point is the overall effect, or lack therof.

high_tea wrote:No, the premise for MHLs is that public safety is better served with than without. It's a Road Rule, remember, and it's trivial to come up with scenarios where breaching this rule or that isn't dangerous at all, isn't dangerous enough to worry about or whatever. It's also beside the point. The point is that making, and enforcing, certain rules makes things safer.

Want to argue that MHLs don't do this? Fine. But arguing that non-compliance is harmless in some cases is no argument at all.

Yes, it is a public safety law, but, like all public safety laws there is a balance.

True. I should have said that the balance of convenience and public safety (something like that, it's the stated purpose of the statute) is better served with than without.

Are you seriously arguing that mandating motorcycle helmets for pedestrians crossing a road would not make it safer for them to cross the road? Of course it would, but it would still be a stupid law because crossing the road is not so dangerous that we mandate helmets. Yet, while over 2,000 pedestrians died on Australian roads over the last 10 years compared to 356 cyclists, it is mandated for cycling.

The problem is one of balance. Mandating safety equipment for cycling is getting the balance wrong. There are dangers in relation to cycling but not so much danger that we need to mandate the wearing of helmets. It should be up to the rider.

DS

Well, fair enough. But the issue is the dangers, or otherwise, of cycling in general. That MHLs, or any other law, are useless in this situation or that is beside the point. The point is the overall effect, or lack therof.

Did you not read my post? Did I say that MHLs are useless in certain situations? I would really appreciate it if you would desist from putting words in my mouth.

What I said, and I thought I made it clear enough for anyone to understand, is that there is a balance between public health and enacting restrictive laws. Given the fatalities of cyclists and the drop in cycling numbers after the introduction of MHLs, my opinion is that the MHLs get the balance wrong.

DavidS wrote:Yes, it is a public safety law, but, like all public safety laws there is a balance.

True. I should have said that the balance of convenience and public safety (something like that, it's the stated purpose of the statute) is better served with than without.

Are you seriously arguing that mandating motorcycle helmets for pedestrians crossing a road would not make it safer for them to cross the road? Of course it would, but it would still be a stupid law because crossing the road is not so dangerous that we mandate helmets. Yet, while over 2,000 pedestrians died on Australian roads over the last 10 years compared to 356 cyclists, it is mandated for cycling.

The problem is one of balance. Mandating safety equipment for cycling is getting the balance wrong. There are dangers in relation to cycling but not so much danger that we need to mandate the wearing of helmets. It should be up to the rider.

DS

Well, fair enough. But the issue is the dangers, or otherwise, of cycling in general. That MHLs, or any other law, are useless in this situation or that is beside the point. The point is the overall effect, or lack therof.

Did you not read my post? Did I say that MHLs are useless in certain situations? I would really appreciate it if you would desist from putting words in my mouth.

The post I was responding to said that.

What I said, and I thought I made it clear enough for anyone to understand, is that there is a balance between public health and enacting restrictive laws. Given the fatalities of cyclists and the drop in cycling numbers after the introduction of MHLs, my opinion is that the MHLs get the balance wrong.

DS

The point I was making was quite a narrow one: you can't argue against MHLs on the grounds that some group, however demographically significant, doesn't benefit from MHLs. The law is targeted at cyclists; the test is whether cyclists in general benefit or not. That's all.

EDIT: and lest I be accused of putting words in your mouth again, no, you didn't say that. The post I originally responded to did.

high_tea wrote:The point I was making was quite a narrow one: you can't argue against MHLs on the grounds that some group, however demographically significant, doesn't benefit from MHLs. The law is targeted at cyclists; the test is whether cyclists in general benefit or not. That's all.

Cyclist in general.Yes, general, wich include those that DO NOT benefit of helmets.Ignoring them is not good.

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

high_tea wrote:...the test is whether cyclists in general benefit or not. That's all.

And has such a test ever been performed? Sample of one, "I ate dirt yesterday and would be dead if I wasn't wearing a hemlet.", statements do not apply to "cyclists in general".

I have no doubt that when enacted, MHLs went a long way to lowering participation rates. I wonder what the participation rate would be like now if all the people who gave it away then had continued with it, no doubt their kids would be a fair proportion of those numbers today.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Xplora wrote:evopoint, are you going to provide the 50K required to fund such a study?

There is no study of these things outside Australia because they just don't see the point. It would be like studying the effectiveness of raising children by lions in the wild... the MHL is a waste of time for most of the world, they won't study it. The writing is already on the wall... cycling is an effective replacement for walking. It is no more dangerous than walking... the hysteria about helmets won't go away because it just doesn't make sense to any sensible person.

To the less sensible, well it's fine because they don't have the ability to see the loss of freedom as a bad thing.

How is a ride at an average speed of 35km/h no more dangerous than a walk at 7km/h? That's like saying driving at 300km/h is the same as 40km/h.

I've had many crashes throughout my mtb/road/tri days and each has hurt / injured me more than anything that's happened to me whilst walking.

Why would I have to put up money for the study? I think mhl's are good. How many motorcyclists ride without helmets?

I had to laugh at the choice of average speed... I absolutely HAMMER my commute some days and I'll average 30kmh at best, going by my Cateye which removes stops from the average. I topped 63kmh whilst pedalling my backside off down a hill last week... I smash it out. I can't get to your average on my commute and I only have to stop 3-5 times for lights if I'm having a decent run. The only people going as fast as me are on spirited rides (you can see they are hammering it too)... the MHL just isn't needed for the rest, and the rest are idiots if they really believe they'll brutalise their head if they have a smash riding so placidly.

I'm already close to the maximum average speed that is safe on my commute.

The reason you'd put up money for the study is to promote MHLs in Europe, the UK, the rest of the free world. My comment was that there are few studies on MHL because only Australia and a handful of other juridictions have been dumb enough to put this law into place. You were the one bringing the challenge - no one in Europe is that interested in ruining their cycling culture like Australia. Your comments about motorcycling are telling - there are truckloads of people who feel the same way about helmets on motos as I do about cycling helmets. You have to look beyond your backyard for the opinions and answers you want.

Well ok, so 30kmh cycling vs 6-7kmh and you consider the risks to be the same? that's why these arguments are impossible, because people are so unrealistic. Tbh I don't recall ever falling over and injuring myself walking and if I do I'm pretty sure it wont hurt like a cycling crash does.

I don't see the need for me to attempt to promote MHL's in Europe, I don't live there nor take it upon myself to try and change the world. The law is in, I agree with it, the onus is on you to provide the evidence if you want it changed.

I agree there are motorcyclists that don't support the law, and drivers that don't wear seatbelts etc but that's the way it is, I honestly don't see the point whining about it.

I ride my bikes, I wear helmets, If others don't ride purely because they have to wear a helmet, it's their loss. I don't see it my (or anyone on the forum) job to do everything in my power to make people ride or to stand on a soapbox and quote irrelevant statistics.

As I said before, I would highly doubt that there are thousands of people sitting at home thinking, "damn, I really wish I could ride to work, if only I didn't have to wear a helmet". Even where that is presented as an argument against cycling, it must be considered that it is more likely to be quoted as a reason if given as an option than, "I don't ride because I'm just another fat, lazy Aussie".

It's funny that people are so passionate about this, and really don't see the point myself. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't but don't whinge when you get a ticket or expect public health to come to the rescue (and before you cite countless other examples... I no doubt would agree that smokers, the morbidly obese etc shouldn't be entitled to public health coverage at taxpayers expense either if the medical condition is a result of choice).

Evo6point5 wrote:I ride my bikes, I wear helmets, If others don't ride purely because they have to wear a helmet, it's their loss. I don't see it my (or anyone on the forum) job to do everything in my power to make people ride or to stand on a soapbox and quote irrelevant statistics.

Yes it is their loss. But it is also society's loss. Health, congestion and environmental losses to name a few. Which is the point, why accept having this loss when we can avoid NOT having MHLs?

Ross wrote:If you crash at 10km/h and smack your head on the gutter you are most certainly going to sustain a major injury if not wearing a helmet. Sure you will probably be a lot worse off at 35km/h if the same thing happens, just saying you aren't immune from serious injury at low speed. It depends on how you fall and what you hit when you fall. Often in a crash situation you often have no time to react, one moment you are fine, the next moment you are on the ground bleeding and dazed (or worse).

The thing I just don't get with PRO-MHLers is how they always manage to ignore the parallels with so many activities in society.. Seriously.. mandating mandatory lifejackets would save far more people than MHL can ever save.

Evo6point5 wrote:How is a ride at an average speed of 35km/h no more dangerous than a walk at 7km/h?

Cause you are using an racing cyclists average speed as a benchmark for mandating helmets for everyone.If you can do these average speeds , well done mate, good for you.But thats an exception, thats not average, thats not common thats not standard.

Lots of people ride at an average speed of 10-15km/h.Compare it all you like, but there is no real need for a helmet at these speeds.Yet the MHL ignores this, and decides otherwise.

No, the premise for MHLs is that public safety is better served with than without. It's a Road Rule, remember, and it's trivial to come up with scenarios where breaching this rule or that isn't dangerous at all, isn't dangerous enough to worry about or whatever. It's also beside the point. The point is that making, and enforcing, certain rules makes things safer.

Want to argue that MHLs don't do this? Fine. But arguing that non-compliance is harmless in some cases is no argument at all.

I think it is a fair comment. I would be aghast if we all had to wear five-point harnesses and kevlar fire-retarding clothing to drive down the road for a bottle of milk. On the other hand, cmmonly riders manage those speeds for significant intervals . It is not about AVERAGE speeds but realistic speeds. So selecting average is just as invalid as others selecting speeds that only elite riders manage.

However the sorts of speeds that are sufficient to do serious harm are considerably less than 30kph and are not as rare as, say, cars on the streets at Bathursts speeds. I have around 400 to 500 people pass me every morning to work (I count riders to kill the boredom, I'm weird). There would be around 100 who would be going around 20kph and those speeds are still sufficient to do the sort of damage that helmets are intended to ameliorate.

Last edited by ColinOldnCranky on Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Perhaps a manadated helmet requirement when on roads and not on paths would address issues. However these days on shared paths the speeds are not ambling any more. Speeds in the order of 30kph (not average, just peaks not rare) on PSPs.

So, if we lost all the PSPs we may all be happier. Or we could lose more riders who prefer avoiding riding in traffic.

Perhaps setting speeds (and policed it) to, say, 12kph max on PSP?.

I couldn't see that kite flying. But many peds would be very happy with that.

And as my max is around that speed then it would mean that I could join group rides.

Evo6point5 wrote:Well ok, so 30kmh cycling vs 6-7kmh and you consider the risks to be the same? that's why these arguments are impossible, because people are so unrealistic. Tbh I don't recall ever falling over and injuring myself walking and if I do I'm pretty sure it wont hurt like a cycling crash does.

I don't see the need for me to attempt to promote MHL's in Europe, I don't live there nor take it upon myself to try and change the world. The law is in, I agree with it, the onus is on you to provide the evidence if you want it changed.

I agree there are motorcyclists that don't support the law, and drivers that don't wear seatbelts etc but that's the way it is, I honestly don't see the point whining about it.

I ride my bikes, I wear helmets, If others don't ride purely because they have to wear a helmet, it's their loss. I don't see it my (or anyone on the forum) job to do everything in my power to make people ride or to stand on a soapbox and quote irrelevant statistics.

As I said before, I would highly doubt that there are thousands of people sitting at home thinking, "damn, I really wish I could ride to work, if only I didn't have to wear a helmet". Even where that is presented as an argument against cycling, it must be considered that it is more likely to be quoted as a reason if given as an option than, "I don't ride because I'm just another fat, lazy Aussie".

It's funny that people are so passionate about this, and really don't see the point myself. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't but don't whinge when you get a ticket or expect public health to come to the rescue (and before you cite countless other examples... I no doubt would agree that smokers, the morbidly obese etc shouldn't be entitled to public health coverage at taxpayers expense either if the medical condition is a result of choice).

Evo, do you exercise much? Do you exercise HARD very much? Do you compete physically, or have you done so in the past?

The body's ability to cope with tasks becomes progressively lower and lower as you go towards the threshold of effort - you push hard, and eventually you'll fail. Your brain's ability to keep up is diminished as well when you are knackered.

I'm riding 20km each way to work, 4-5 times a week, plus a Saturday morning. My ability to cope with 250-300kms of riding in a week over 12 hours is much higher than my ability to do the same distance over 10 hours. My body is less taxed, and more importantly my brain is less taxed as well. I can pay attention to what is happening a lot better if I'm watching the road, checking my corners, anticipating traffic. If I'm pushing 63kmh I CANNOT do all those things as well as I can at 20kmh. You're a smart enough fellow to understand the simple logic to this. It is a BIG reason why we don't let kids have the same responsibilities and risks as adults - because they physically cannot deal with as many threats and issues as an adult. One reason why you'd encourage a kid to wear a lid even if you don't, MHL or not.The difference is 5kmh average is simple. The threshold is such a big difference... my 30kmh is the average person's 20kmh. They lack fitness to cope. That's the biggest thing - raw speed isn't the only issue at hand, it is also your ability to ride safely and deal with possible threats.... when you are tired and drunk, you can't drive as well as being alert and safe, true - regardless of your speed. A 60kmh alert is safer than 30kmh blind drunk.

Which leads me back to the MHL - it seems to assume that the only people capable of commuting are psycho hard nuts like me who shrug off a 250km week on the bike as a recovery week. We must be at the absolute threshold of effort, and couldn't possibly be able to deal with traffic and the rest... and of course this is rubbish. MHL is a problem because of the disincentive for 10-20% of people to ride a bike to the shops for milk and bread. 10-20% to consider riding a bike 5km to a friend's place. 10-20% to consider saving an hour a day riding to work instead of fighting the bus and train. 10-20% to save 2000 dollars a year on car rego and maintenance for a second car they don't need. 10-20% to consider riding to their workplace for their daily exercise, instead of driving to a gym to sit on an exercise bike

I know that many people aren't affected by MHL. I honestly don't believe 50% of people will change their minds either way. But you are hurting your society when people on Centrelink are going into serious debt to buy a rubbish car that they can't afford to run, when they could just ride and catch a taxi for the 4 weeks a year that their daily duties are hampered by rain.

I rode to the petrol station with a jerry can in my trunk bag, 2km away, for the lawn mower to fill up. Took me 10 minutes there and back. Some dude was in a 40K SUV doing the same job. I wonder if he has realised that he spent 20 minutes working for the privilege of an extra 5 minutes of convenience? It would take me almost as long to drive for the same trip as I rode.

MHL is about a direction in society... mechanically, there is no reason for us to resist the bike. It SHOULD be a part of everyone's life, at least 1 trip a fortnight should be bike. Got to run now, I've got to get ready for work, it's a long ride.

Evo6point5 wrote:Well ok, so 30kmh cycling vs 6-7kmh and you consider the risks to be the same? that's why these arguments are impossible, because people are so unrealistic. Tbh I don't recall ever falling over and injuring myself walking and if I do I'm pretty sure it wont hurt like a cycling crash does.

I don't see the need for me to attempt to promote MHL's in Europe, I don't live there nor take it upon myself to try and change the world. The law is in, I agree with it, the onus is on you to provide the evidence if you want it changed.

I agree there are motorcyclists that don't support the law, and drivers that don't wear seatbelts etc but that's the way it is, I honestly don't see the point whining about it.

I ride my bikes, I wear helmets, If others don't ride purely because they have to wear a helmet, it's their loss. I don't see it my (or anyone on the forum) job to do everything in my power to make people ride or to stand on a soapbox and quote irrelevant statistics.

As I said before, I would highly doubt that there are thousands of people sitting at home thinking, "damn, I really wish I could ride to work, if only I didn't have to wear a helmet". Even where that is presented as an argument against cycling, it must be considered that it is more likely to be quoted as a reason if given as an option than, "I don't ride because I'm just another fat, lazy Aussie".

It's funny that people are so passionate about this, and really don't see the point myself. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't but don't whinge when you get a ticket or expect public health to come to the rescue (and before you cite countless other examples... I no doubt would agree that smokers, the morbidly obese etc shouldn't be entitled to public health coverage at taxpayers expense either if the medical condition is a result of choice).

Evo, do you exercise much? Do you exercise HARD very much? Do you compete physically, or have you done so in the past?

The body's ability to cope with tasks becomes progressively lower and lower as you go towards the threshold of effort - you push hard, and eventually you'll fail. Your brain's ability to keep up is diminished as well when you are knackered.

I'm riding 20km each way to work, 4-5 times a week, plus a Saturday morning. My ability to cope with 250-300kms of riding in a week over 12 hours is much higher than my ability to do the same distance over 10 hours. My body is less taxed, and more importantly my brain is less taxed as well. I can pay attention to what is happening a lot better if I'm watching the road, checking my corners, anticipating traffic. If I'm pushing 63kmh I CANNOT do all those things as well as I can at 20kmh. You're a smart enough fellow to understand the simple logic to this. It is a BIG reason why we don't let kids have the same responsibilities and risks as adults - because they physically cannot deal with as many threats and issues as an adult. One reason why you'd encourage a kid to wear a lid even if you don't, MHL or not.The difference is 5kmh average is simple. The threshold is such a big difference... my 30kmh is the average person's 20kmh. They lack fitness to cope. That's the biggest thing - raw speed isn't the only issue at hand, it is also your ability to ride safely and deal with possible threats.... when you are tired and drunk, you can't drive as well as being alert and safe, true - regardless of your speed. A 60kmh alert is safer than 30kmh blind drunk.

Which leads me back to the MHL - it seems to assume that the only people capable of commuting are psycho hard nuts like me who shrug off a 250km week on the bike as a recovery week. We must be at the absolute threshold of effort, and couldn't possibly be able to deal with traffic and the rest... and of course this is rubbish. MHL is a problem because of the disincentive for 10-20% of people to ride a bike to the shops for milk and bread. 10-20% to consider riding a bike 5km to a friend's place. 10-20% to consider saving an hour a day riding to work instead of fighting the bus and train. 10-20% to save 2000 dollars a year on car rego and maintenance for a second car they don't need. 10-20% to consider riding to their workplace for their daily exercise, instead of driving to a gym to sit on an exercise bike

I know that many people aren't affected by MHL. I honestly don't believe 50% of people will change their minds either way. But you are hurting your society when people on Centrelink are going into serious debt to buy a rubbish car that they can't afford to run, when they could just ride and catch a taxi for the 4 weeks a year that their daily duties are hampered by rain.

I rode to the petrol station with a jerry can in my trunk bag, 2km away, for the lawn mower to fill up. Took me 10 minutes there and back. Some dude was in a 40K SUV doing the same job. I wonder if he has realised that he spent 20 minutes working for the privilege of an extra 5 minutes of convenience? It would take me almost as long to drive for the same trip as I rode.

MHL is about a direction in society... mechanically, there is no reason for us to resist the bike. It SHOULD be a part of everyone's life, at least 1 trip a fortnight should be bike. Got to run now, I've got to get ready for work, it's a long ride.

I ride to work too, only 22km each way so similar to yourself and I don't think 30kmh is unusual, it's on the low/average side based on the other cyclists I see on a daily basis (Perth is pretty flat and occasionally get a good tail wind, but not in the arvo).. but anyway....

You make some good points and we're never going to agree on everything. I do agree that there may be some tiny miniscule percentage that for them, MHL is the reason they don't ride. Is that your or my problem? I suppose that depends on your social consceince, and for me I think if it wasn't for MHL there'd be another reason they'd find not to work

That said, I would rather work on encouraging cycling, including helmets, than retrogressing at the first obstacle. If society did that, cars wouldn't have seatbelts or airbags and most other safety measures in the workplaces wouldn't exist either. I've coaxed (teased/taunted/ridiculed) some non-cycling mates into buying bikes and helmets have never been an issue, it's just an expectation that you would get one. That is the real objective that I would see, rather than power to the people, burn your bra type thinking.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.